kirk_strauchler

<p>Really, the only answer to your question is: "You won't know until you develop the roll." I know that really doesn't answer your question, but it's about the only truthful answer. My guess is that you trashed the frames from the cassette to the take up spool, then maybe a couple on the take up spool, and possibly lightly fogged some of the other frames. If the room was dark enough, you may be just fine. But.... you won't know until you develop the roll.</p>

<p>If you read through this:<br> <cite>grahamp.dotinthelandscape.org/mfaq/m_faq.pdf</cite><br> on pages 21 and further, it appears as though it's a lot of guess-work to determine the manufacturing dates of Mamiya equipment. That pdf is mostly about the TLR's, but I'm pretty sure you'd be able to apply the theories to any of the Mamiya models.</p>

<p>I agree, and all could be caused by obstructed flow of developer. If you follow what I'm saying, the flow of developer will be disrupted all around the area where the trailing edge comes close to, or even touches, the film below.</p>

<p>Jose if this is only happening on one frame, it's because the end of the roll when spooled curls towards the film below it, obstructing the developer flow in that area. I've had it happen on 120 and 35mm. Solution is as you get to the end of the roll during spooling onto the reel, bend the very edge of the film up so it doesn't curl towards the already spooled film. Very simple solution.</p> <p>Now, if it's happening to multiple frames on a roll, then it's something else, and you can ignore the above. </p>

<p>It's a lens off an x-ray machine. Not too useful for traditional photography. They weigh a ton, and coverage is relatively small, no large format photos with this thing. I have a couple, and they make for interesting macro lenses when free-handed. There are people that ill pay more then the seller's asking price; I sold 3 of them for $400 each, and I bought them for $10 each. People pay for that f/0.8 (mine were f/0.95 and f/0.75). But they do make good paperweights!</p>

<p>Since you already own Canon EF lenses, have you considered going with one of the newer-ish Canon film bodies that accept your lenses? Canon produced some awfully nice film bodies with the EF mount. Most affordable would be the EOS 650, 620, and 630. You can then save the money that would have gone into a new lens stable, and use that money towards film and developing. </p> <p>If you like the idea of truly 'old school' cameras, such as those you listed, I would lean towards the Pentax K1000 (a fully manual camera) or the Olympus's. The lenses for both the Oly's and the Pentax can easily be adapted for use on your Canon DSLR, whereas the Minolta and Canon manual lenses are orphaned mounts, that can't (easily) be adapted to any of the newer DSLR's. Both Oly and Pentax made excellent lenses back in the day, and produce nice stuff on digital.</p>

<p>I must be nuts, but I used a normal sewing needle, a thread that was about the same color, and a thimble, all from my wife's very basic sewing kit, and restitched mine. Took about an hour, but it's been holding up fine for 3 years now.</p> <p>So, IMHO, it is a very simple task.</p>

<p>Robert, it's not a film issue, nor a camera issue, and not technically even a processing issue. </p> <p>I'll make an educated guess that the frame referenced is about 3 frames from the beginning or end (depending upon how the roll was put on the developing reel). I had this problem for about 3 rolls on different cameras before I figured it out. The edge of the film that goes onto the reel last has a curl in it, and the edge comes very close to contacting the film in the reel right below it. This reduces the flow of the developer at that point during development agitation. </p> <p>The simple way to fix this, is as you get to the end of the film when putting it on the reel, fold the edge opposite of the curl. This will allow for good flow. If you are having a lab process your film, you need to take this roll back to them, and explain how they can correct it. Not saying they will, and there's no real way of knowing whether or not they do it, but if they do, this problem will disappear.</p> <p>So if you are developing your own, just fold/curl back the last edge of the film as you put it on the reel, and this problem will go away. Again, there is nothing wrong with your camera.</p>

<p>My Fuji GA645 imprints the rebate with exposure info. I think most (all?) of the Fuji RF's do it. It's a great feature IMO.</p>

<p>Tim, </p> <p>The camera is an SLR type, so what you are seeing on the focus screen should be what the film plane is seeing. A lens's distance scale is really only a guide, and not a precise indication of distance. The lens could say it's at 1 ft, but if you're focusing on something 200 feet away, and it's in focus on your focus screen, it'll be in focus on the film. If this was a rangefinder or a TLR, then it would be a (slightly) different story. On an SLR system, it can't be the lens that's front or back focusing, it has to be a different component.</p> <p>Both rolls you shot were 120. Is your insert a 120 insert? Most likely it is, but even if it isn't that shouldn't account for the huge focus discrepancy you're seeing. Is the pressure plate of the insert springy but firm? Is it pushed into the film back fully until you hear the 'click'?</p> <p>Things that can cause focus issues include (but may not be limited to);<br> ground glass/focus screen (incorrectly or incompletely mounted, out of adjustment, upside down, etc)<br> mirror (not seating correctly, loose, a replacement mirror that is not the correct type)<br> film plane (film not flat and tight to camera's designed plane of focus)<br> film insert (wrong type, not seated fully, old and no longer holding film properly against film gate)<br> film back (not mounted correctly, loose, obstructed mount)</p> <p>Another (very) unlikely cause could be the film is loaded incorrectly. If you accidentally load the film with the non-emulsion side towards the lens/camera, it could cause some error in focus. I doubt this is your cause, as the amount of misfocus is more then I would expect from misloaded film.</p> <p>There are probably other possible causes, but if you can eliminate each of the above, you'll figure it out (I think).</p> <p>Your other possible option is to return the camera. </p>

<p>I had a long response in the process, and while I was doing additional research, I came upon this old photo.net thread: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00aUH5</p> <p>You may have already seen it, but it goes into everything I was going to say, and some more. After reading it, I would try and find some good images of the mirror break/rest, and double check to make sure yours is ok.</p> <p>Oh, and I checked my Mamiya M645 1000S, RB67 SD, C330, C220, and Nikon F3, and Canon AE-1. All have the matte surface of the focus screen (aka ground glass) towards the mirror/lens. Interesting it's the opposite on the Pro.</p>

<p>Not going to guess at the metering issues, but I'll guess on the focus issue.</p> <p>I'll guess that the ground glass is in upside down, not seated properly, or any adjustment screws (if there are any) need to be calibrated. Other possible cause is the film isn't being held flat to the plane of focus, which could be a back issue (weak springs on the pressure plate). But I would investigate the ground glass first. The matte/dull side of the glass should be down. If it's up, there's your problem. If it's mounted correctly, you'll need to re-calibrate the ground glass. It would take me forever to try and explain how to do it, but there are plenty of other discussions online on how to do it.</p>

<p>Since you don't say, I'm guessing you feel they're underexposed. You're probably using average metering, and the sky is causing your foreground to underexpose. But that's only a guess, which is all any of us can do, since you've given us very little info to go on.</p> <p>One thing for sure is you have light leaks.</p>

<p>As Martin says, it does need a battery to work. I use a 4LR44 (4SR44) battery, which is pretty easy to get. You can get them from your local Walgreens/CVS/Radio Shack (are they still around?), but I bought a bunch (36 of them I think) on ebay for around $12. </p> <p>Great camera, enjoy it! I have 2 for some reason, but won't part with either of them.</p>

<p>David makes a good point. I have freed up 'jammed' lenses with a hair dryer. Just be careful, the lens will get hot to the touch.</p>

<p>It won't be cheap, and may not be worth it, but you could check with KEH in Atlanta, or CRIS in Arizona. Cost will probably be about $200. Depends what you paid for the lens, but you may want to give it a go yourself. </p>

<p>If the D-76 is fully dissolved, and your fixer isn't full of sulfur or silver bits, check your scanner glass. It may be dust/crap on your platen, or on the underside of it. As Jose said, check the negs with a loupe to see if there are any impurities on the actual negative. </p>

<p>Nothing to say that hasn't already been said, but this such an awesome idea!</p> <p>Congratulations and best of luck to you and the new bride!</p> <p>Thanks for sharing with us!</p>

<p>690xxxx puts it at May-July 1968. I just sold a 644xxxx.</p>

<p>On the 220 insert, there is a triangular piece that tells the camera a 220 insert is being used. If you remove the triangular piece, the camera will think it is a 120 insert. I have done this and used 120 film without any issues. There is a long thread over on APUG about it.</p> <p>The M645 is a (IMO) great system. I started with the same camera you're looking at, and then upgraded to a 1000S (only because the regular one had an issue with the film counter). I love it, and I think you will too.</p>

<p>Glad you were able to find a place to repair it with available parts. This is why I typically recommend an old Mamiya system over an old Bronica system. Just seems like there are so many more replacement parts/units available with Mamiya.</p>

<p>I would use a non-permanent adhesive, but I would find a way to secure it if there was a chance it would screw up exposures if left as it is.</p>

<p>Phil, I understand what you're saying, but what pro would use the in-camera HDR over one done in true HDR software for paid work? You even say that you would still need to process afterwards, so the feature is (IMO), for the MWAC/GWAC who think its cool, and makes them a better fauxtographer. </p>

<p>I've been a Canon guy, but always respected Nikon. I worked for Canon in the early '90's, and one thing they took pride in was that (at the time) everything they made, was reprographic. Whether it was cameras, photocopiers, fax machines, digital filing, etc., and all required a high level of reprographic R&D. Nikon is, was, an always has been a photographic and related equipment company. I would feel safe in guesstimating that 99.999% of both company's R&D money is put in to photographic endeavors. </p> <p>Along with what has already been said by others, one thing about Sony that makes me feel like they aren't geared in any manner towards professionals, is that they're cameras seem to boast gimmicky features. In camera HDR (like a pro is really going to use that), is one that totally turns me off the Sony name. <br /><br />Sony had/has a strong foothold in the consumer market as a well known name for electronics, on both the consumer and professional levels, but Canon and Nikon have always had that reputation in the photographic world. So when Joe Public is going out to Best Buy to get his first 'high-end' camera, he sees the Sony name, the high MP count, and all these incredibly useful (useless) features right there in easy access, he equates it to 'the best out there'. Whereas a pro typically is savvy enough to know that while a high MP count and in-camera editing isn't enough to bring home the bacon, but that other quality features on C/N, such as faster AF, will.</p> <p>Some other possible reasons is that Sony still is a bit of a proprietary company (hot shoes), amount of lenses available is significantly lower for Sony then either Canon or Nikon, this also applies to available accessories (including from 3rd party manufacturers), and as much as Sony wants to think it does, an electronic VF can not reproduce the entire scene as well, or as instantaneously, as a quality mirror setup.</p>

<p>Reminds me of the much coveted Meyer Optik Trioplans. In the right circumstances, I think it would be great.</p>